Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?

[Starhawk]

Just like cruisers and battleships made frigates, PT boats, and destroyers disappear? All navies in the future will necessarily consist of a wide variety of sizes of ships... Bigger is only better for certain roles. Not to mention exponentially more expensive... I don't think flying ships would reduce the number of fighter jets used much at all.

Does not quite fit Fyron a frigate is designed to do different tasks then a destroyer and a cruiser.


I was on a modern Frigate a while and that thing was cool as hell to me but when I stepped aboard an Arleigh Burke (sp?) Destroyer it was obviously a more impressive ship with more numerous weapons and more firepower.

I saw a cruiser and that thing was jaw dropping to me (I've never seen a carrier in person but I hear they'll knock your sox off) But it served a different role in a carrier group then both frigates AND destroyers.

Frigate:
The guided missile frigates (FFG) bring an anti-air warfare (AAW) capability to the frigate mission, but they have some limitations. Designed as cost efficient surface combatants, they lack the multi-mission capability necessary for modern surface combatants faced with multiple, high-technology threats. They also offer limited capacity for growth. Despite this, the FFG 7 class is a robust platform, capable of withstanding considerable damage. This "toughness" was aptly demonstrated when USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine and USS Stark was hit by two Exocet cruise missiles. In both cases the ships survived, were repaired and returned to the fleet. USS Stark was decommissioned in May 1999.

The Surface Combatant Force Requirement Study does not define any need for a single mission ship such as the frigate and there are no frigates planned in the Navy's five-year shipbuilding plan.

Destroyers:

Destroyers and guided missile destroyers operate in support of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious groups and replenishment groups. Destroyers primarily perform anti-submarine warfare duty while guided missile destroyers are multi-mission [Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)] surface combatants. The addition of the Mk-41 Vertical Launch System or Tomahawk Armored Box Launchers (ABLs) to many Spruance-class destroyers has greatly expanded the role of the destroyer in strike warfare.[/b]

Cruisers
Modern U.S. Navy guided missile cruisers perform primarily in a Battle Force role. These ships are multi-mission [Air Warfare (AW), Undersea Warfare (USW), and Surface Warfare (SUW)] surface combatants capable of supporting carrier battle groups, amphibious forces, or of operating independently and as flagships of surface action groups. Cruisers are equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles giving them additional long range strike mission capability.[/b]

That comes from http://www.navy.mil/

Anyway my point is Bigger is better if they are on the same "dimensions" think about it say a capital ship has 12 main guns and lets add to this now the ability of 3 dimensions to PLACE weapons as well (top sides bottom) that gives the capital ship a choice of a LOT of weapons including secondary gun batteries counter missile missiles.

Anti-fighter missiles (Think about how many AMRAM missiles a destroyer sized vessel cold sling in it and still have room for primary weapons if they got rid of the helicopters) NOW since most modern warfare is missile based lets say you have fifteen fighters each carrying 2 shipkiller missiles (they'd have to be big remember as most ship killers are HUGE compared to fighter killers) so that's possibly 60 missiles.

Now let's say the capital ship has something like modern CIWIS and AEGIS, it's already begun firing on the missiles with counter missiles.

Probobly started rippling off anti-fighter missiles while the fighters launched their own missiles (say 2 anti-fighter missiles dedicated to each fighter to better ensure kill that's 30 missiles)

Counter missiles begin knocking out incoming enemy missiles, ciwis will probobly do a good deal of removing the rest, but let's say two missiles get through the capital ship takes outter hull damage and depending on where struck inner hull and system damage.

However the fighters are not as survivable, even a single missile will kill them instantly so lets say only HALF the destroyers missiles get through that's still 15 dead fighters for one damaged capital ship.


And that's assuming defenses as primitive as CIWIS and AEGIS (an advanced tracking system that could track and follow all 60 incoming missiles plus the fighters) they've already designed LASER weapons (yes you read right) that can intercept super sonic artillery shells, and ballistic missiles with ease.

The first of these laser prototypes was the size of a 747 jumbo jet, however just this year the US military designed a laser weapons system compact enough to be slung under a fighter's wing I think they call it HEL.

Now assuming multiple capital ships operating in a carrier group like operation you'd have overlapping layers of defense, CIWIS,Laser, anti-missile missiles, and counter fighter missiles.

It would be pretty suicidal if you think about it.

Now take away atmosphere and like I said have a rough mass-to-thrust ratio high enough on your capital ships and they can be just as fast and just as "maneuverable" as a fighter and yeah I'm pretty sure they would be able to hit a fighter with a naval gun as I have said all you'd really need to do is sweep the area with multiple beam weapons.

Assuming solid shot weapons all you'd need is very rapid fire rail cannons (such as the neoBSG or Pegasus) or worse for the fighters proximity explosion weapons such as nukes or even fragmentation weapons.

A fighter is a deathtrap because it can't have the RAD shielding of a big ship and can't take the Damage a big ship could, a nuke goes off against a futuristic starship it may survive, a nuke goes off in proximity to fighters and it aint gonna be pretty.
Even if the fighters aren't destroyed a Neutron warhead would deep fry your pilots in a horrible way.


(edit) Oh and modern Warships are Larger then their WWII counterparts (think a modern Cruiser is about 3/4 the size of a WWII battleship/battlecruiser?) so that alone lets you know sizes change

Battleships of the wet navy are not quite an adequate defense either as their big guns are SLOW and not even capable of arcing high enough to hit a fightercraft lol but we've all seen how deadly their AAA batteries were in WWII now imagine all of them replaced by CIWIS cannons (shudders)

Battleships of the wet navy were also rendered "obsolete" too early according to a great many naval types because they were quite capable of putting down cheaper shells instead of uber expensive missiles for the same job. That and a battleship could practically shrug off modern ship killers and sink the bastard that shot it

And there are actually plans for future "battleships" in the modern US navy, they won't have the big guns but they'll have a crapload of missiles and enough AA and 5in' guns to make anyone else regret getting close. I'll try and find a link

[Atrocities]

Now that was a hefty read. A lot of interesting things to consider. To bad we cannot take full advantage of such concepts and ideas as those that have been expressed in this forum over the years.

I personally liked the subspace (Submarine) concept. But oh well.

[Suicide Junkie]

Starhawk:

The point is that we should make SE4 fighters viable. For FUN.

All of the stuff that is bothered to be added to the game should be viable. That requires that nothing be overpowering or otherwise ubered.

Things do not need to be equal in combat, but each thing does need an important role to play.

[Starhawk]

See that's why I play mods SJ especially Devnull where fighters pack a punch but not so much that it makes it crippling to get them

I also like good ol' fashioned gunships which I designed personally when I figured out that I didn't have enough "oomph" behind my "stock devnull" fighters.

I mean it's not a "problem" if you can fix the fighters on your own and mainly that just means adding enough size to pack shields/ecm/engines/weapons and the like.

I also have had a great deal of use out of fighters used in small tactical units not big honking 1,000 fighter swarm fests

I mean to me it's a matter of tactics fix it if you don't consider that viable I guess that's a problem

[Iron Giant]

Suicide Junkie said:
Starhawk:

The point is that we should make SE4 fighters viable. For FUN.

All of the stuff that is bothered to be added to the game should be viable. That requires that nothing be overpowering or otherwise ubered.

This is where I am coming from. Other players may not "like" the idea of fighters EVER playing a big role, I do.

Would it be breaking the NDA to get someone on the Beta test for SEV to comment on the viability of fighters in SEV?

I'm scared by how useless they were in Starfury.....

[Fyron]

Starhawk said:
Does not quite fit Fyron a frigate is designed to do different tasks then a destroyer and a cruiser.

I do believe that was my point.

It would be pretty suicidal if you think about it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Now take away atmosphere and like I said have a rough mass-to-thrust ratio high enough on your capital ships and they can be just as fast and just as "maneuverable" as a fighter...

Physics would disagree. Torque and inertia work against the huge ship from being as manueverable as a small ship like a "fighter." Now, if you make your ships all be spheres you might be able to pull it off...

[Mephisto]

Iron Giant said:
Would it be breaking the NDA to get someone on the Beta test for SEV to comment on the viability of fighters in SEV?

Yep, it would be.

[douglas]

Besides, there's no guarantee that the viability of fighters won't change drastically, for better or worse, between now and release, so any such comment on the current viability of fighters would be largely meaningless.

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

Starhawk said:
Frigate:

<etc.>

That comes from http://www.navy.mil/

Ya know when I read that I could just imagine a US Army sergeant with signature stubble beard, half-burned cigar and squinting look standing in front of a map waving a rod, pointing at markings, while a military march was being played in the background

*****

To get back to the subject of fighters:

You're right, fighters aren't much use for much in stock SEIV. That's why so many mods make so many changes to them. Devnull's been mentioned here, Proportions, and not to forget SJ's Carrier Battles mod..... People are devising ways to improve fighters all the time. Including yours truly

No really I'm still kind of working on the End of Galactic Civilization mod (which is overdue for a rename) and I'm planning to give it the fighter combat system I was planning to give the Capship Mod. (Oh dear, he's going off on a rant again.) Don't worry, I'll keep it short. (Or at least I'll try.)

Basically, it revolves around the following:
Fighters are split up into three (four, if you count specialist and civilian craft) categories: Interceptor, Space Superiority and Bomber.
Interceptors are fast, small and very cheap and can be produced by the batch-load.
Space Superiority Fighters (SSF's) are expensive little buggers capable of carrying heaps of anti-fighter weaponry.
Bombers are large, lumbering craft capable of packing an enormous punch against capital warships. If you want to take out an annoying flight of orbital bombardment ships, send in a few flights of Bombers to dispatch them with impunity.

Interceptors must rely on two things to be effective; Speed and Numbers. They're used to overwhelm enemy SSF defenses and/or to make swift strikes at Bomber groups. Interceptors only carry light weaponry. SSFs on the other hand are more slow moving and are better suited in a defensive role, to screen your ships against enemy Bomber strikes. You can also send them to attack enemy SSF screens to give your Bombers a clear path. Bombers are the only fighters capable of packing anti-capital ship weaponry; and boy are they packing. A well-executed Bomber strike has the potential to cause more damage than an attack executed by a massive capital warship. A medium-sized flight of Bombers can easily wipe out a small ship.

Fighters aren't a requirement for effective combat; they're merely an alternative to the "big ships, big guns" approach which is also not without its own bulky, lumbering charms.

[Starhawk]

No no Navy Strategia they have Admirals not Generals

Now you want something that comes from Generals here's an Army General:

"Only an infantrymen can drag some son of a ***** come out of his foxhole to sign a peace treaty." (can't remember who said that)

And a Marine General:

"Every single day I look up at the sky and I praise the lord! Yeah I praise the lord for another beautiful day in the United States Marine Corps! ooorah!"